From 191222bd3e81db4b592c72e0235725b78a353836 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Don Armstrong Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:05:22 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] add initial work on the decision for 681419 --- 681419_free_non_free_dependencies/decision | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) create mode 100644 681419_free_non_free_dependencies/decision diff --git a/681419_free_non_free_dependencies/decision b/681419_free_non_free_dependencies/decision new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f8ecce --- /dev/null +++ b/681419_free_non_free_dependencies/decision @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +===== TITLE + +Alternate Dependencies on non-free packages in main + +===== WEB SUMMARY + +The committee resolves that alternatiave dependencies on non-free +packages are permisible in main. + +===== EMAIL INTRO + +The technical committe was asked in #681419 by the policy maintainers +to determine as a matter of technical whether alternative dependencies +on non-free packages were acceptable in main. + +===== EMAIL EPILOGUE + +The committee would like to thank everyone who participated in the +discussion of #681419. + +===== DECISION + +Whereas: + +1. The Debian Policy Manual states (§2.2.1) that packages in main + "must not require or recommend a package outside of main for + compilation or execution". Both "Depends: package-in-non-free" and + "Recommends: package-in-non-free" clearly violate this requirement. + The Technical Committee has been asked to determine whether a + dependency of the form "package-in-main | package-in-non-free" + complies with this policy requirement, or whether virtual packages + must instead be used to avoid mentioning the non-free alternative. + +2. Both options have the following effects in common, meeting the + standard that main should be functional and useful while being + self-contained: + + (a) Package managers configured to consider only main will install + package-in-main. + + (b) Package managers configured to consider both main and non-free + will prefer to install package-in-main, but may install + package-in-non-free instead if so instructed, or if + package-in-main is uninstallable. + + (c) If package-in-non-free is already installed, package managers + will proceed without installing package-in-main. + +3. The significant difference between these two options is that the + former makes the non-free alternative visible to everyone who + examines the dependency relationship, while the latter does not. + +4. Merely mentioning that a non-free alternative exists does not + constitute a recommendation of that alternative. For example, many + free software packages state quite reasonably that they can be + compiled and executed on non-free platforms. + +5. Furthermore, virtual packages are often a clumsy way to express + these kinds of alternatives. If a package happens to require any + of several implementations of a facility that have a certain + option, then it can either depend on suitable alternatives + directly, or its maintainer can first attempt to have fine-grained + virtual packages added to each of the packages they wish to permit. + In some cases this may be appropriate, but it can easily turn into + quite a heavyweight approach. + +Therefore: + +6. The Technical Committee resolves that alternative dependencies of + the form "Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free" are + permissible in main, and do not constitute a violation of the + policy clause cited in point 1. + +7. We nevertheless recommend that packages in main consider carefully + whether this might cause the inadvertent installation of non-free + packages due to conflicts, especially those with usage + restrictions. \ No newline at end of file -- 2.39.5